A Hepatitis C Educational Needs Assessment of Canadian Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim. Despite advances in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection (CHC), it remains a major public health problem in Canada and globally. The knowledge of healthcare providers (HCPs) is critical to improve the care of CHC in Canada. To assess the current knowledge and educational needs of healthcare providers (HCPs) in the area of CHC management a national online survey was conducted. Method. An interprofessional steering committee designed a 29-question survey distributed through various direct and electronic routes. The survey assessed several domains (e.g., participant and practice demographics, access to resources, knowledge of new treatments, and educational preferences). Results. A total of 163 HCPs responded to the survey. All hepatologists and 8% of primary care providers (PCPs) reported involvement in treatment of CHC. Physicians most frequently screened patients who had abnormal liver enzymes, while nurses tended to screen based on lifestyle factors. More than 70% of PCPs were not aware of new medications and their mechanisms. Conclusion. Overall, the needs assessment demonstrated that there was a need for further education, particularly for primary care physicians, to maximize the role that they can play in screening, testing, and treatment of hepatitis C in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".